CWP-32929-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 241 POONAM TANWAR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Raghav Sharma Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed the order dated for Child Care Leave (CCL) has been declined writ of mandamus a period of ninety 2. Facts relevant to decide the matter are service with the Department now governed by the ‘the Act of 2019 ninety days from impugned order dated the same under the Act of 2019 been empowered to make rules for compensation, leave, transfer, termination of service, etc. been made. 3. In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Department is under obligation to make rules for CCL to 2024 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH POONAM TANWAR Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYAJ.(Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a the order dated 30.10.2024, Annexure P-7, whereby the petitioner’s request for Child Care Leave (CCL) has been declined mandamus has been sought directing the respondents a period of ninety days. Facts relevant to decide the matter are service with the Department as Guest Teacher o now governed by the Haryana Guest Teachers Service Act, 2019 ‘the Act of 2019’), notified on 12.03.2019. She applied for grant of CCL for from 05.08.2024 to 02.11.2024, which has been declined vide impugned order dated 30.10.2024, on the ground that there is no provision for under the Act of 2019. Under Section 9 empowered to make rules for compensation, leave, transfer, termination etc.; however, there is no provision of In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Department is under obligation to make rules for CCL to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-32929-2024 Decided On: 04.04.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana. seeking a writ of certiorari quashing whereby the petitioner’s request for Child Care Leave (CCL) has been declined being inadmissible. Further, a has been sought directing the respondents to grant CCL for Facts relevant to decide the matter are, the petitioner joined eacher on 12.07.2007. Her services are Haryana Guest Teachers Service Act, 2019 (for short, . She applied for grant of CCL for , which has been declined vide , on the ground that there is no provision for . Under Section 9 thereof the Government has empowered to make rules for compensation, leave, transfer, termination ; however, there is no provision of rules for CCL, nor any have In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Department is under obligation to make rules for CCL to quashing whereby the petitioner’s request Further, a to grant CCL for the petitioner joined . Her services are (for short, . She applied for grant of CCL for , which has been declined vide , on the ground that there is no provision for the Government has empowered to make rules for compensation, leave, transfer, termination , nor any have In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Department is under obligation to make rules for CCL to Aman Dua 2025.04.23 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-32929-20 women Guest T teaching work interim order dated Leave to Appeal (C) no.16864/2021 Himanchal Pradesh and others Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2016 pertain to grant of CCL to provides, “This rule shall also be applicable to women employees appointed on adhoc basis and work of minimum two years service and not beyond the date of discharge or termination on whatsoever reason for women adhoc such a provision for women certain office orders dated whereby women to fulfillment footing the petitioner deserves to be granted Rules. 4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the impugned order has been rightly passed in the Act of 2019 or the Rules framed there be granted. As and when any provision for CCL is made, the petitioner’s case will be accordingly considered. 5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 2024 -2- uest Teachers, so that they are not deprived of due participation teaching work. In support of the contention, reliance interim order dated 22.04.2024, rendered by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) no.16864/2021 titled Shalini Dharmani Himanchal Pradesh and others. He has also referred to Rule Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2016 pertain to grant of CCL to Government employees. This rule shall also be applicable to women employees appointed on adhoc basis and work charged employees, however, not before completion of minimum two years service and not beyond the date of discharge or termination on whatsoever reason.” In case facility of CCL adhoc and work charged employees such a provision for women Guest Teachers. certain office orders dated 26.02.2019 and whereby women Guest Teachers were granted to fulfillment of requirements of Rule 45 of the petitioner deserves to be granted Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the impugned order has been rightly passed, and in the absence of any provision in the Act of 2019 or the Rules framed thereunder . As and when any provision for CCL is made, the petitioner’s case will be accordingly considered. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been eachers, so that they are not deprived of due participation in ntion, reliance has been placed upon an by the Supreme Court in Special Shalini Dharmani v. The State of He has also referred to Rule 46 of Haryana (for short, ‘the Rules of 2016’), which employees. A ‘Note’ appended thereto This rule shall also be applicable to women employees appointed charged employees, however, not before completion of minimum two years service and not beyond the date of discharge or facility of CCL has been provided employees, there is no reason not to have eachers. Secondly, he has referred to 26.02.2019 and 11.05.2023, Annexure P-9, eachers were granted Child Adoption Leave subject Rule 45 of the Rules of 2016. On similar the petitioner deserves to be granted the benefit of CCL under these Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the and in the absence of any provision under, the benefit claimed cannot . As and when any provision for CCL is made, the petitioner’s case Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been in an by the Supreme Court in Special . The State of Haryana , which appended thereto This rule shall also be applicable to women employees appointed charged employees, however, not before completion of minimum two years service and not beyond the date of discharge or provided to have , he has referred to , Child Adoption Leave subject similar se Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the and in the absence of any provision , the benefit claimed cannot . As and when any provision for CCL is made, the petitioner’s case Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been Aman Dua 2025.04.23 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-32929-20 6. It is apparent on record that the petitioner is working in the Department as 2019. It is not in dispute Act, nor have any Rules been framed for the purpose. petitioner’s claim upon Shalini Dharmani working as a regular Assistant Professor in fourteen years Osteogenesis Imperfecta, There was a specific provision for grant of CCL under Rule 43 applicable Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 Government resolved to permit CCL for women employees with differently abled children upto the age of twenty writ petition seeking a direction to the Government for adoption of Rule 43 of the CCS (Leave was placed upon provisions 2016 too. It was in these facts the Supreme Court observed that model employer CCL is required for such women to ensure that they are participation as members of the work force. Directions were accordingly issued to the State of Himachal Pradesh granting CCL to mothers the objects and purposes of the Act of 2016 children with special needs. Besides, a direction was issued to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of special leave under Rule 32 (Leave) Rules, pending further orders. These were only interim directions 2024 -3- It is apparent on record that the petitioner is working in the Department as Guest Teacher, and her service It is not in dispute that there is no provision , nor have any Rules been framed for the purpose. petitioner’s claim for grant of CCL cannot be considered. Shalini Dharmani case is also misplaced as the working as a regular Assistant Professor in a fourteen years old son was suffering from Osteogenesis Imperfecta, who had undergone several surgeries since birth. specific provision for grant of CCL under Rule 43 Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 Government resolved to permit CCL for women employees with differently abled children upto the age of twenty-two years in writ petition seeking a direction to the Government for adoption of Rule 43 Leave) Rules, had been dismissed by was placed upon provisions of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, t was in these facts the Supreme Court observed that model employer cannot be oblivious to the special concerns, and provision of CCL is required for such women to ensure that they are participation as members of the work force. Directions were accordingly issued to the State of Himachal Pradesh to re granting CCL to mothers, including making special provision the objects and purposes of the Act of 2016, for th children with special needs. Besides, a direction was issued to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of special leave under Rule 32 ules, pending further orders. These were only interim directions It is apparent on record that the petitioner is working in the service is governed under the Act of s no provision for grant of CCL under the , nor have any Rules been framed for the purpose. In such a situation the for grant of CCL cannot be considered. The reliance placed misplaced as the petitioner therein was a Government College, and her son was suffering from a rare genetic disorder, had undergone several surgeries since birth. specific provision for grant of CCL under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972, under which the Union Government resolved to permit CCL for women employees with differently two years instead of eighteen years. Her writ petition seeking a direction to the Government for adoption of Rule 43-C had been dismissed by the High Court. Reliance Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, t was in these facts the Supreme Court observed that the State as a cannot be oblivious to the special concerns, and provision of CCL is required for such women to ensure that they are not deprived of due participation as members of the work force. Directions were accordingly re-consider the entire aspect of making special provisions consistent with for those who were bringing up children with special needs. Besides, a direction was issued to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of special leave under Rule 32 of the CCS ules, pending further orders. These were only interim directions It is apparent on record that the petitioner is working in the governed under the Act of of CCL under the such a situation the The reliance placed was her rare genetic disorder, had undergone several surgeries since birth. of the the Union Government resolved to permit CCL for women employees with differently Her C eliance Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, State as a cannot be oblivious to the special concerns, and provision of not deprived of due participation as members of the work force. Directions were accordingly of consistent with who were bringing up children with special needs. Besides, a direction was issued to consider the of the CCS ules, pending further orders. These were only interim directions Aman Dua 2025.04.23 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-32929-20 issued in a pending special leave to appeal of the same can be taken by the petitioner herein for grant of CCL similarly placed as the petitioner in 7. Further, the reliance leave under the Rules of 2016 to similarly placed women the Department cannot be a ground to claim the benefit CCL and, secondly, Teachers. Thirdly, violation of the issuing any such direction will amount to perpetuatin settled law that right to equality can be claimed in furtherance of law, and not in derogation thereto. orders, dated 26.02.2019 passed prior to notification of the Act dated 11.05.2023, d sent to the competent Teacher was entitled to 8. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands dismissed. 04.04.2025 Ad 2024 -4- issued in a pending special leave to appeal peti of the same can be taken by the petitioner herein for grant of CCL similarly placed as the petitioner in the SLP. urther, the reliance placed upon the grant of eave under the Rules of 2016 to similarly placed women the Department cannot be a ground to claim the benefit and, secondly, the said Rules are not applicable to women Thirdly, in case any benefit has been given by the Department in violation of the Act of 2019, it cannot be a ground to claim similar relief ssuing any such direction will amount to perpetuatin settled law that right to equality can be claimed in furtherance of law, and not in derogation thereto. Fourthly, it also needs to be dated 26.02.2019, granting child adoption passed prior to notification of the Act, i.e., 12.03.2019 dated 11.05.2023, did not grant the benefit, as thereby the matter was only ompetent authority for advice as to whether the concerned eacher was entitled to child adoption leave under the Rules of 2016. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? ition, and accordingly no benefit of the same can be taken by the petitioner herein for grant of CCL, nor is she upon the grant of child adoption eave under the Rules of 2016 to similarly placed women Guest Teachers by the Department cannot be a ground to claim the benefit since, firstly, it is not ules are not applicable to women Guest any benefit has been given by the Department in it cannot be a ground to claim similar relief as ssuing any such direction will amount to perpetuating the legality. It is a settled law that right to equality can be claimed in furtherance of law, and not also needs to be noted that one of the office doption leave to a woman has been 12.03.2019. And the other one, not grant the benefit, as thereby the matter was only uthority for advice as to whether the concerned Guest eave under the Rules of 2016. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No no benefit , nor is she doption eachers by it is not uest any benefit has been given by the Department in as It is a settled law that right to equality can be claimed in furtherance of law, and not one of the office been , not grant the benefit, as thereby the matter was only uest In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands Aman Dua 2025.04.23 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document